Bill Will Force Gun Owners to Store Assault Weapons At Government Authorized Depots.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Bill Will Force Gun Owners to Store Assault Weapons At Government Authorized Depots.

Because you can never have too many laws, regulations and mandates, Massachusetts State Representative David Linsky has filed a new bill that would, among other things, force gun owners to undergo mental health background checks, acquire liability insurance, pay an additional 25% tax on all forms of ammunition, and require firearms categorized as “assault weapons” to be stored outside of their homes and only at government approved storage depots.

“This bill is a comprehensive effort to reduce all types of gun violence – murders, intentional shootings, accidental shootings and suicides. There is not one solution to reducing gun violence – we can’t eliminate it – but there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce the everyday tragedy of gun violence and deaths,” said Linsky.

“I have spoken with hundreds of people over the past few weeks in developing this legislation – victims, police officers, criminologists, physicians, and yes – gun owners and sportsmen,” stated Linsky. “There are a lot of good ideas out there. We should all have one goal – reducing gun violence and trying to keep more tragedies from happening.”

Provisions in the bill include.

Having one standard of the issuance of all gun licenses, giving local police chiefs the ability to evaluate all aspects of an application for a gun license.

Requires proof of liability insurance for possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

Requires that all large capacity weapons and grandfathered assault weapons must be stored at gun clubs or target ranges.

Requires live shooting as part of the curriculum for a basic firearms safety course; this is not a current requirement.

Requires all applicants for gun licenses and FID cards to sign a waiver of mental health records for review to be destroyed after decision.

Brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Limits gun buyers to one firearm purchase per month.

Bills such as this one are being filed by irrationally driven anti-gunners all over the country.

They are targeting every aspect of firearms in an effort to first reduce ownership, and then to ultimately ban it altogether.

They’ll expand the definitions for mental health to include basic forms of stress and normal human mood fluctuations and designate these as mental health conditions that would disqualify you from owning a gun.

They’ll tax gun purchases and ammunition like they’ve done with cigarettes (tripling the cost over a decade) and require huge insurance premiums, making ownership unaffordable for most Americans.

They’ll track the sale and transfer of all firearms through registration, with unjust punishments for anyone engaging in black-market trading.

And, eventually, another crisis – likely one that purports to threaten the very security and stability of the government of the United States – will be used in an attempt institute a complete roundup of the majority of modern firearms.

I love the use of words like "comprehensive" and "common sense" used to justify this "assault" on the Bill of Rights. No different than Bush and company. Both sides are the enemy when it comes to our liberties. They love taking them away.

"Politics is the Art of Looking for Trouble, Finding it Everywhere, Diagnosing it Incorrectly, and Applying the Wrong Remedies"

The morons in Massachusetts lined up in droves to vote for the Annointed One and all of his minions. So, I have no doubt that they will be among the first to lead the charge to undermine and eliminate the Second Amendment rights of others. The current gun laws did absolutely nothing to curtail the shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or anywhere else so WTF is the point of throwing more laws at the problem. The sad thing is that even in my 40 years, people have become infinitely more comfortable depending on the government and far less willing to take responsibility for their own actions and situations. We are headed toward despotism at an alarming rate that keeps increasing speed exponentially. When I speak of this phenomenon, a lot of people here at FH and elsewhere blow me off as some kind of conspiracy therorist, alarmist nut-job but I know what I see and I know history. Disarming the populous is the first step toward absolute power. That is why the second amendment exists...to ensure that this doesn't happen here. All of the lip-service about home-protection, hunting, and sport shooting is bull****...the founding fathers wanted us to have a ****-load of guns to make sure the government never tried to step on us. Obama and his minions know this to be true and know that the only road to "Utopia" is to have us voluntarily hand over our weapons. Amazing that a string of shootings...the latest of kids no less...happens just days into his second term so he doesn't have to worry about reelection. I don't think a lot of us will recognize this country in four years once Barry and the Boyz have had their fun.

Ah crap, I have to get going...those damned black helicopters are back and I have to go hide!

Seems like the RIGHT to bear arms is being transformed into a government granted priveledge more and more.

Exactly and it will continue this way until it is the right NOT to bear arms.

This really isn't about public safety at all. I don't know about you guys but I don't leave my house with the worry about getting shot on a daily basis. I know there are nut jobs out there that could do it but I really don't stop to worry about it at all. That's because in actuality if I do end up getting shot dead know two things 1) It was a better death than cancer and 2) even if I'm dead from a gun, I still wouldn't change my stance on the right to bear arms so don't stand up there and tell me I'd support legislating to regulate arms after I'm dead or I'll ****ing haunt your dumbass.

It's only a matter of time before they start doing this **** with free speech and press. There are already motions to limit what you can say to an officer, yea it was shot down now but that's the same way gun laws evolved. What harm can one little law do, well it sets a precedent to build from and chip away the freedoms that we take for granted.

The difference here is not everyone is a gun owner so it doesn't affect them where free speech does. I'm glad I'll be dead by the time America becomes a socialistic society.

"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty
of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation,
and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social
Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."

These resounding words were the opening of a November 12, 1789 Act of
the North Carolina Legislature which was passed on December 11, 1789 and
which chartered the University of North Carolina. Noting that this Act
was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the
state legislatures on September 25, 1789) and that the North Carolina
Legislature was active at that time, North Carolina being one of the
original 13 states, let us pay particular attention to the usage of the
words "well regulated" found both in this Act and in the 2nd Amendment
of the BoR. The use of "well regulated" in this act can shed some light
on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate between the collectivist and the individualist
interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well
regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The
collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly
controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of
"regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage
of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper
operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this
in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."

Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have
been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same
"properly operating" interpretation.

1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep
time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and
perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A
(mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said
to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its
back-plate.

2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double
barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim.
If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling")
fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and
needs to be "re-regulated".

Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of
man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in
a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well
regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having
been put into properly functioning condition".

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to
understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time
(ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which
would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped
militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their
own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this
interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other
than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and
couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for
it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither
be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is
controlling itself.

An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same
meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, "To oblige the great body of
the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under
arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and
evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_
perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_
well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss." (emphasis added)

Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not
refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia
or the members of the militia.

This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete
definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an
Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then
"discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training
in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more
widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill
and experience; the art of war."

The "people" have the 2nd Amendment right, not the militia. Today
many people make a large distinction between the two groups, perhaps
confusing "militia" and "Army". The militia is more inclusive,
including the Armed Forces, the National Guard and the unorganized
component described in the U.S. Code as "The militia of the United
States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
except [for felons], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..."
The age and gender restrictions might be challenged as discriminatory.
The historical basis for a more inclusive definition includes the U. S.
Supreme Court statement that "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens
capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or
reserve militia of the United States as well as the States; ..." From
this we see that the mention of the militia does not conflict with the
individualist interpretation.

Therefore I conclude that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A
properly functioning Militia is necessary to the security of a free
State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear
Arms shall not be infringed."

References:

Act of NC Legislature of Nov. 12, 1789 - Legislative Papers, H. of C.,
1789, AH. Cited in A Documentary History of The University of North
Carolina 1776-1799 Compiled and Annotated by R. D. W. Connor The
University of North Carolina Press 1953. Volume 1, page 23.

Original Charter of the University, December 11, 1789, An Act to
Establish a University in this State. N. C. Laws, 1789, S. R., XXV,
Chap. XX, 21-25. Cited in Connor (1953) Volume 1, page 34.

This bill along with the one in New York just proves what the anti-2nd amendment crowd really wants. This nonsense about "common sense" laws and banning "assault" rifles and "high capacity" clips is just a front.